Tag: 2008 elections

You know who is bitter in America? I am. Because shit-kickers voted twice for a retarded guy they wanted to have a beer with, and everybody else had to suffer the consequences!

-Bill Maher

The bubba vote? What a fucking hoot! Newsweek magazine just continues to amaze in their increasingly successful quest to become America’s predominant tabloid shitrag. This week’s cover story is laughingly entitled Obama’s Bubba Gap and flogs the latest Clinton slime machine storyline that the magical mulatto empty suit is failing to attract the same dumb motherfucker demographic who were largely responsible for giving us the eight year running pox on western civilization that is the George W. Bush soft dictatorship.

After his Friday interview with PBS journalist Bill Moyers and after the specially edited for the dual purposes of fearmongering and race baiting for political gain sound bytes were heard in their proper context the fake devil that is the Reverend Jeremiah Wright not only right but he is deserving of an apology by every lazy corporate media hack who have once again chosen that a regular paycheck earned by picking the low hanging fruit and not upsetting the plantation masters is far more desirable than such quaint antiquities as journalistic integrity. When looking at the ‘questionable’ sermons in their true context I must agree and also must say that I have heard similar sentiments espoused by some of those on the right although in slightly less bombastic terms (they dearly cling to their blood soaked rag and whimper stars and stripes forever), it’s called BLOWBACK (see Chalmers Johnson’s book of same title) and this country has a closet full of murderous skeletons when it comes to those of darker colored skins.

I take Obama to task on a lot of issues, but it wouldn’t be fair if I didn’t acknowledge that he does take some good positions in this campaign.  An example is illustrated in yesterday’s column by the New York Times’ Paul Krugman, which states:

The impression that Mr. McCain’s tax talk is all about pandering is reinforced by his proposal for a summer gas tax holiday – a measure that would, in fact, do little to help consumers, although it would boost oil industry profits.

Obama opposes this silly and, ultimately, fairly useless measure.  Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, agrees with McCain.

Last night MSNBC (including Keith Olbermann) was all over Jeremiah Wright for going on a book tour and – gasp! – daring to criticize Barack Obama.  Reading today’s hate-fueled rant on the web site, you’d think he had done something wrong.  Why?  Why shouldn’t the man who was publicly tossed overboard by his former parishioner return the favor?

Reading Kevin Alexander Gray’s assessment of the speech in which the Democratic candidate for president distanced himself from the man who presided over his marriage and baptized his children, I couldn’t help but conclude that Wright had been thrown under the proverbial speeding bus by Obama – who apparently decided long ago to adopt Bill Cosby’s out-of-touch, blame-the-victim rhetoric (an observation echoed by Adolph Reed, Jr., in the May issue of The Progressive).

“His political repertoire,” writes Reed, “has always included the repugnant stratagem of using connection with Black audiences in exactly the same way Bill Clinton did – i.e., getting props for both emoting with the Black crowd and talking through them to affirm a victim-blaming, ‘tough love’ message that focuses on alleged behavioral pathologies in poor Black communities.”  Reed blasts Obama for going “beyond Clinton and rehears[ing] the scurrilous and ridiculous sort of narrative Bill Cosby has made famous.”

Gray pointed out in his April 2, 2008 Progressive online column:

Until the controversy broke about his ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama himself frequently played the race card – on black people.

Shortly before the Texas and Ohio primaries, Obama was speaking to a mostly black audience and said, “I know some of ya’ll, you got that cold Popeye’s out for breakfast. I know. That’s why ya’ll laughing. … You can’t do that. Children have to have proper nutrition.”

In South Carolina, he told the state Legislative Black Caucus that a good economic development plan in the black community would be “cleaning up the garbage.”

Now, if white politicians had said these things they would have been pummeled.

And even in his much-heralded speech, Obama went out of his way to criticize welfare, decry “the erosion of black families” and stress the need for black fathers to spend more time with their kids.

This Bill Cosby routine goes down well with white voters, but it further stigmatizes blacks.

Obama managed to weasel his way out of trouble a month ago by dissing his former pastor as a bitter relic of a bygone era.  So who can blame Jeremiah Wright when he goes on the talk circuit to defend himself and retaliate against his betrayer?  For truly, did Obama not merely use his former pastor’s church as a means of establishing ties to a community whose political backing he wanted to strengthen his career (writers at Black Agenda Report and The New Republic certainly seem to think so)?

The point here is not to criticize Barack Obama so much as it is to defend Jeremiah Wright as he gives back what he received.  The danger of dismissing him as an angry, bitter old man whose message is equally ignorable lies in continuing the cycle of racism in this country, and the suppression of very real issues pertaining to U.S. foreign and domestic policy.

The fact is that not only was Wright betrayed, so too was the whole of the Black community, and the legitimate criticisms of imperialist policy that have wrought suffering and devastation upon others.  We may disagree with the reverend’s delivery, but we cannot deny that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were a direct consequence of our country’s meddling in Middle Eastern affairs that resulted in mass death and political oppression in the region.  Nor can we deny that our nation was built on the backs of African slaves, and the genocide of the aboriginal peoples of this continent.  The indignation over Jeremiah Wright’s fiery rhetoric clouds the truths contained in his diatribes.

So let’s cut the man some slack.  He may not be the sort of person we’d prefer to point out these truths, his method of delivery far too blunt for our comfort.  But sometimes we need that in order to face up to unpleasant facts about ourselves and our nation’s history.  We should consider that Mr. Wright may be justified in going public with his side of the story, with his criticisms.

If that happens to hurt Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, whose fault is that?

I can’t prove the assertion in the title. I’m not connected to any “inside” track. And anything a lowly wage-earner like me could possibly know about conspiracies is almost certainly disinformation.

But the assertion is true, and I bet you know that. And so we must ask some questions.

It might possibly be illegal, and it’s certainly anti-consumerist, to entertain the mental state they used to call “remembering.” It’s a superstition of mine that remembering is indispensable to being prepared for the future. It seems if you notice something happens again and again and again, over a period of years, that you might expect it to happen again in the future. Now, if you find that notion a little whacky, it’s best we part company here. Otherwise, here’s what I remember about our Media, our Democratic politicians, and our elections:

In today’s OpEd section of The New York Times, Elizabeth Edwards delivers a very well expressed and unfortunately, very necessary, critique of today’s press regarding the picking of a president.

Opening with a mention of the media’s (lack of serious) coverage of the Pennsylvania primary, Elizabeth hits the nail on the head and calls the press out for what it has become: shallow. She also notes that she is not alone in this observation.

I’m not the only one who noticed this shallow news coverage. A report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy found that during the early months of the 2008 presidential campaign, 63 percent of the campaign stories focused on political strategy while only 15 percent discussed the candidates’ ideas and proposals.

The picking of our president is too important a task to approach without good, solid analysis of a candidate’s policies and positions.

It was inevitable. More than a million and a quarter people turned out yesterday to vote for Hillary Clinton, she won another large swing state by more than two hundred thousand votes, and those champions of democracy in the shrillosphere are again today begging someone to pull the plug on this race. Stop her before she wins again!

As Big Tent Democrat continues to try to get people to understand, demography is everything, in this race. After Clinton’s disastrous, and politically incompetent, final few weeks of February, she has been doing very well. She has been winning large states by mostly solid margins. She has been chipping away at Barack Obama’s popular vote lead. While Obama supporters continue to tout The Math, they continue to ignore the fact that Obama cannot win the nomination on pledged delegates. Once again, repeat after me: the superdelegates will decide the nomination. Obama cannot win without them. Clinton cannot win without them. The pledged delegate metric is only one, and because Clinton cannot catch Obama in that metric, her entire argument rests on the possibility of her ending up with the most popular votes. That’s a reasonable argument, and one that the uncommitted superdelegates are clearly willing to listen to. Of course, for that argument to even become part of the discussion is dependent upon Clinton’s prevailing in the popular vote, and that’s still very much an uphill climb, for her; but it is by no means impossible. And Obama supporters need to understand that.

Last night, Clinton once again denied Obama the knockout punch. Once again, she started with a large lead in the polls, he vastly outspent her, the polls showed him close, and possibly capable of winning, and she then held him off by a significant margin. Once again this took place in a state that was demographically favorable to her. North Carolina is next. For the first time in many weeks, Obama will be on his demographical home turf. In a large state, which could provide him with a large popular vote victory margin. On the same day, he can probably end this race by winning Indiana, which is more demographically favorable to Clinton, but which borders his home state of Illinois. He has, thus far, won every state that borders Illinois, and where Illinois’s friendly media markets have spillover influence. If Obama is going to end this race before June, it will be in two weeks. Win huge in North Carolina, and simply win in Indiana, and Clinton will have no chance of catching him in the popular vote, even including Florida. If Clinton wins Indiana, and somehow pulls off the upset in North Carolina, she will be the nominee. But barring a political disaster for Obama, she won’t win North Carolina. The demographics are too unfavorable. But if she holds down his victory margin, and wins Indiana, her popular vote possibility will remain alive. Once again, the dynamics are obvious. Once again, many will ignore them.